Red dot differences- little tube vs window pane?

Status
Not open for further replies.

milemaker13

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
1,389
Location
Chicago suburbs
Im starting to look at getting a red dot holographic type sight for an AR. I'm seeing two basic styles... one looks like a tiny little scope and the other is like a window pane in a little frame. You guys know the types I mean, lol.

Whats the main difference between these types?
 
I use the tubes on rifles because they are cheaper, stronger and more resistant to glare. I use the windows on hand guns because they are smaller, lighter and less intrusive. I like the Burris 25mm tube on my Ruger PC 9 carbine and love the Burris fast fire 3 on my 1911, DE and Dan Wesson 744. For me they seem to be the best bang for the buck. I swap the Burris 25mm tube with a 3x-9x Leupold on my PC9 depending on how angry and how far away the mutant beverage cans are... they both return to zero using their quick mounts.

I have tried a couple of the "Sub Burris" cheapies... and they just aren't worth messing with. I would love to try some of the premium sites... but they really don't offer anything to me that justify their price. I don't use red dots on my carry guns and I am not planning on going off to battle anytime soon so a 1 year battery vs a 10 year battery doesn't make a difference to me (I am a couple years into both my Burris 25mm and Fast Fire 3's on the original batteries). The Fast Fire 3 is plenty rugged for my uses and have never lost zero even on my DE L5 50ae, Dan Wesson 44 mag and side mounted .45acp.

Red dots are different than true Holographic sites. Holographic sites are nicer than red dots but they are also a lot more expensive and I believe more battery hungry in general. I can see how a true holographic site could be faster for target acquisition... it takes a while to train yourself to hold your gun at the proper angle to quickly acquire the red dot on the non-holographic sites... but after a while it becomes second nature. I am too cheap for a quality true holographic site.

P.S. I could see how a larger than 25mm tube on a rifle would be nice and might be worth paying for.
 
Last edited:
true holographic sights have an amazing high tech crystal structure that is mostly clear except for an imbedded 3D image of a reticle, off in the distance.
An interesting fact, , all of the crystal structure has that 3D image, so a broken off piece would still have all that image, but just a smaller window to view it with.

A red-dot has a tiny led light source that bounces off a nearly transparent curved surface that makes the dot appear stationary at a distance over most of its curved surface.

so the technology is completely different between them, with the more difficult technique by far being the holograph.

I have both types, one holographic $$$$ and several red-dots $, and the holographic just takes up space in the safe.

both types can be of either form factor, so the window style vs tube style can also be misleading.
 
Last edited:
Im starting to look at getting a red dot holographic type sight for an AR. I'm seeing two basic styles... one looks like a tiny little scope and the other is like a window pane in a little frame. You guys know the types I mean, lol
What's the main difference between these types?
le
you need to look through the scopes. There is less difference between the 'window' vs 'tubular' scopes that what's going on within the scope. Most Trijicon scopes (both window pane and tubular) use a combination of fiber optic and tritium to illuminate the reticles.
For me, getting beyond all of this is the ease of acquisition and understanding of the sight picture

Trijicon RMR (window pane)


es%2Farmslist%2Fuploads%2Fposts%2F2017%2F11%2F23%2F7615192_04_fnx_45_tactical_w_trijicon_rmr_640.jpg ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FSmfSjnmI1fk%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg


Trijicon Rx30 (tubular)


?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.jpg ?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi39.tinypic.com%2F257lpvt.jpg
 
Ive been reading up. I post the question here and then go about googlin' it. Saves time ;)
The cost of the holo sights is a bit steep. Are red dots just as good in practical terms? Range fun and games...

Who chooses to spend the money on holo and why?
 
I have: Sightmark, EoTech, Holosun, Bushnell. For all intents and purposes, they are pretty similar.

The Holosun has a nice auto on, and auto-dimming, feature that its solar cell adds.
The Sightmark has two dot colours but they use two different emitters. The two emitters cannot be sighted in independently. The result is that you need to choose one colour, sight it in, and stick with it.
I haven't used the EoTech enough to form much of an opinion.
The Bushnell TRS-25 is the well-regarded value leader for a reason. For the price, it is going to be hard to beat.
 
In the open type the two best value units are the Burris FastFire III and the Vortex Venom which comes in both 3 and 6 MOA reticles. Be careful you get the one you want if you choose one of them. They are about the same in every respect regarding quality and price. I have several Sightmark Mini Pro Specs. I like them and I like the price a lot, but they don't compare to the Burris and Vortex.

The hands down best value closed type is the Bushnell TRS-25.
 
"it takes a while to train yourself to hold your gun at the proper angle to quickly acquire the red dot on the non-holographic sites"

My experience with cheapies of both designs is the "widow pane" design is harder to light-up than the tube type when mounted on a handgun.
I don't see this as a problem on a rifle as the stock (butt/cheek piece) puts your eye more in alignment with the window type site.
Watch out for tube type red dots being tinted dark, I'd rather have any shading to be my glasses that can be adjusted for conditions, not fixed internally in the red dot.
jmo,
:D
 
Last edited:
Do you have asigmatism? If so, you might not like a red dot. Be sure to look through one before you buy.
While this is true, if should not be a problem for anyone wearing their corrective lenses. If the astigmatism is corrected well enough for reading, you should be able to use a red dot.
 
While this is true, if should not be a problem for anyone wearing their corrective lenses. If the astigmatism is corrected well enough for reading, you should be able to use a red dot.
My experience with red dots is wearing any glasses for near vision (reading, etc) turns the dot into a smudge/comet looking image.
The dot is super imposed to appear at the target distance by design, wearing any prescription for anything other than distance makes the dot appear blurry/smudged/comet like.
Most people looking thru these sites at a gun show or gun shop for the 1st time, usually are wearing corrective glasses for READING, then immediately declare the dot to be blurry, and the site must be inferior :cuss:
… not so, take off the glasses :what:
jmo
:D
 
My experience with red dots is wearing any glasses for near vision (reading, etc) turns the dot into a smudge/comet looking image.
The dot is super imposed to appear at the target distance by design, wearing any prescription for anything other than distance makes the dot appear blurry/smudged/comet like.
Most people looking thru these sites at a gun show or gun shop for the 1st time, usually are wearing corrective glasses for READING, then immediately declare the dot to be blurry, and the site must be inferior :cuss:
… not so, take off the glasses :what:
jmo
:D
Or wear your progressives and find the right spot to optimize the dot.
 
Or wear your progressives and find the right spot to optimize the dot.
Kinda hard when shooting a rifle as you are already looking thru the vary top of the lens :uhoh:
Wait, oh, ok that's why you look like you are nodding yes when you are shooting
:D
 
Kinda hard when shooting a rifle as you are already looking thru the vary top of the lens :uhoh:
Wait, oh, ok that's why you look like you are nodding yes when you are shooting
:D
Actually if your rifle fit properly, your head would be level in all directions and you would not be looking through the tops of your lenses. Sounds like you need a taller comb.
 
Actually if your rifle fit properly, your head would be level in all directions and you would not be looking through the tops of your lenses. Sounds like you need a taller comb.
Sure standing...what about prone :scrutiny:
done here...with you anyways,
have at it,
:D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top